Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others?

Psychological Bulletin

Volumn 143, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 1-35

  Cheryan, Sapna ^a   Ziegler, Sianna A ^a   Montoya, Amanda K ^b   Jiang, Lily ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Culture; Gender; Science; STEM; Underrepresentation

Indexed keywords

ENGINEERING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MATHEMATICS; SCIENCE; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TECHNOLOGY;

ENGINEERING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MATHEMATICS; SCIENCE; TECHNOLOGY; WOMEN;

EID: 84990961091     PISSN: 00332909     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/bul0000052     Document Type: Article

References (377)

1. Abbiss, J. (2008). Rethinking the 'problem' of gender and IT schooling: Discourses in literature. Gender and Education, 20, 153-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540250701805839.
2. Ackerman, P. L., Kanfer, R., & Beier, M. E. (2013). Trait complex, cognitive ability, and domain knowledge predictors of baccalaureate success, STEM persistence, and gender differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 911-927. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032338.
3. Adya, M., & Kaiser, K. (2006). Factors influencing girls' choice of information technology careers. In E. M. Trauth (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Gender and Information Technology (pp. 282-288). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-815-4.ch044.
4. Ahlqvist, S., London, B., & Rosenthal, L. (2013). Unstable identity compatibility: How gender rejection sensitivity undermines the success of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. Psychological Science, 24, 1644-1652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0956797613476048.
5. Alon, S., & DiPrete, T. A. (2015). Gender differences in the formation of a field of study choice set. Sociological Science, 2, 50-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.15195/v2.a5
6. American Philosophical Association. (2013). Women in philosophy. Newark, DE: University of Delaware. Retrieved from http://c.ymcdn.com/ sites/www.apaonline.org/resource/resmgr/Data_on_Profession/ Women_in_Philosophy.pdf
7. Association of American Medical Colleges. (2012). 2012. Physician specialty data book. Retrieved from https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/ 2012%20Physician%20Specialty%20Data%20Book.pdf
8. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York, NY: Academic Press.
9. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2008). Girls' biology, boys' physics: Evidence from free-choice science learning settings. Research in Science & Technological Education, 26, 75-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 02635140701847538.
10. Barker, L. J., & Aspray, W. (2006). The state of research on girls and IT. In J. M. Cohoon & W. Aspray (Eds.), Women and information technology: Research on underrepresentation (pp. 2-54). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262033459.003.0001.
11. Barron, B. (2004). Learning ecologies for technological fluency: Gender and experience differences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31, 1-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/1N20-VV12-4RB5-33VA
12. Barth, J. M., Todd, B., Goldston, D., & Guadagno, R. E. (2010, June). An integrated approach to choosing technical careers: Gender differences in life goals for college students. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Louisville, KY.
13. Beasley, M. A., & Fischer, M. J. (2012). Why they leave: The impact of stereotype threat on the attrition of women and minorities from science, math and engineering majors. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 427-448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9185-3.
14. Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (2000). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability at age 13: Their status 20. years later. Psychological Science, 11, 474-480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00291.
15. Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1982). Consequences in high school and college of sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: A longitudinal perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 598-622. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312019004598.
16. Bench, S. W., Lench, H. C., Liew, J., Miner, K., & Flores, S. A. (2015). Gender gaps in overestimation of math performance. Sex Roles, 72, 536-546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0486-9.
17. Bennett, C. (2011). Beyond the leaky pipeline: Consolidating understanding and incorporating new research about women's science careers in the UK. Business and Economic Review, 54, 149-176.
18. Bettinger, E. P., & Long, B. T. (2005). Do faculty serve as role models? The impact of instructor gender on female students. American Economic Review, 95, 152-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/000282805774670149.
19. Betts, J. R. (1996). What do students know about wages? Evidence from a survey of undergraduates. The Journal of Human Resources, 31, 27-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/146042.
20. Beyer, S. (2014). Why are women underrepresented in computer science? Gender differences in stereotypes, self-efficacy, values, and interests and predictors of future CS course-taking and grades. Computer Science Education, 24, 153-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2014.963363.
21. Beyer, S., DeKeuster, M., Walter, K., Colar, M., & Holcomb, C. (2005). Changes in CS students' attitudes towards CS over time: An examination of gender differences. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37, 392-396. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1145/1047124.1047475.
22. Biernat, M. (2005). Standards and expectancies: Contrast and assimilation in judgments of self and others. New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203338933.
23. Bizot, B. (2012). Taulbee in-depth: PhD specialty areas. CRA Taulbee survey: 2012-2013. results. Washington, DC: Computing Research Association. Retrieved from http://cra.org/crn/2012/09/taulbee_indepth_ phd_specialty_areas/
24. Bleeker, M. M., & Jacobs, J. E. (2004). Achievement in math and science: Do mothers' beliefs matter 12. years later? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 97-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.97.
25. Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and science careers: Leaky pipeline or gender filter? Gender and Education, 17, 369-386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540250500145072.
26. Borg, A. (1999). What draws women to and keeps women in computing? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 869, 102-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08362.x.
27. Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., Burnaford, R. M., Weaver, J. R., & Arzu Wasti, S. (2009). Precarious manhood and displays of physical aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 623-634. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167208331161.
28. Brainard, S. G., & Carlin, L. (1998). A six-year longitudinal study of undergraduate women in engineering and science. Journal of Engineering Education, 87, 369-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1998.tb00367.x.
29. Buchmann, C. (2009). Gender inequalities in the transition to college. Teachers College Record, 111, 2320-2346.
30. Buday, S. K., Stake, J. E., & Peterson, Z. D. (2012). Gender and the choice of a science career: The impact of social support and possible selves. Sex Roles, 66, 197-209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0015-4.
31. Buddin, R. (2014). Gender gaps in high school GPA and ACT scores. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/ Info-Brief-2014-12.pdf
32. Bunderson, E. D., & Christensen, M. E. (1995). An analysis of retention problems for female students in university computer science programs. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1995.10782148.
33. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). Computer and information research scientist. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-andinformation- technology/computer-and-information-research-scientists.htm
34. Burkam, D. T., Lee, V. E., & Smerdon, B. A. (1997). Gender and science learning early in high school: Subject matter and laboratory experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 297-331. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3102/00028312034002297.
35. Campbell, S. L. (2012). For colored girls? Factors that influence teacher recommendations into advanced courses for black girls. The Review of Black Political Economy, 39, 389-402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s12114-012-9139-1.
36. Carnevale, A. P., Cheah, B., & Hanson, A. R. (2015). The economic values of college majors. Retrieved from https://cew.georgetown.edu/wpcontent/ uploads/Exec-Summary-web-B.pdf
37. Carr, M., Steiner, H. H., Kyser, B., & Biddlecomb, B. (2008). A comparison of predictors of early emerging gender differences in mathematics competency. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 61-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.04.005.
38. Carrell, S. E., Page, M. E., & West, J. E. (2010). Sex and science: How professor gender perpetuates the gender gap. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125, 1101-1144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2010.125.3.1101.
39. Casey, B. M., Andrews, N., Schindler, H., Kersh, J. E., Samper, A., & Copley, J. (2008). The development of spatial skills through interventions involving block building activities. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 269-309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177177.
40. Cavallo, A. M. L., Potter, W. H., & Rozman, M. (2004). Gender differences in learning constructs, shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course achievement in a structured inquiry, yearlong college physics course for life science majors. School Science and Mathematics, 104, 288-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2004.tb18000.x.
41. Cech, E. A. (2013). The self-expressive edge of occupational sex segregation. American Journal of Sociology, 119, 747-789. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1086/673969.
42. Cech, E. A., Rubineau, B., Silbey, S., & Seron, C. (2011). Professional role confidence and gendered persistence in engineering. American Sociological Review, 76, 641-666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00031 22411420815.
43. Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. (2014). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 15, 75-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15291 00614541236.
44. Ceci, S. J., & Papierno, P. B. (2005). The rhetoric and reality of gap closing: When the "have-nots" gain but the "haves" gain even more. American Psychologist, 60, 149-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.2.149.
45. Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2010). Sex differences in math-intensive fields. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 275-279. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721410383241.
46. Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women's underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218-261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0014412.
47. Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 413-423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025004002.
48. Cervone, D., & Peake, P. K. (1986). Anchoring, efficacy, and action: The influence of judgmental heuristics on self-efficacy judgments and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 492-501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.492.
49. Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The drawa- scientist test. Science Education, 67, 255-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730670213.
50. Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2006). A matter of degrees: Female underrepresentation in computer science programs cross-nationally. In J. McGrath & B. Aspray (Eds.), Women and information technology: Research on the reasons for underrepresentation (pp. 182-204). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780 262033459.003.0006.
51. Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2009). Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44. countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 924-976. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/595942.
52. Chen, X. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in postsecondary education. NCES 2009-161. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009161.pdf
53. Cheryan, S. (2012). Understanding the paradox in math-related fields: Why do some gender gaps remain while others do not? Sex Roles, 66, 184-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0060.z.
54. Cheryan, S., Cameron, J. S., Katagiri, Z., & Monin, B. (2015). Manning up: Threatened men compensate by disavowing feminine preferences and embracing masculine attributes. Social Psychology, 46, 218-227. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000239.
55. Cheryan, S., Drury, B. J., & Vichayapai, M. (2013). Enduring influence of stereotypical computer science role models on women's academic aspirations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 72-79. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0361684312459328.
56. Cheryan, S., Master, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2015). Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: Increasing girls' interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 49. http:// dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00049.
57. Cheryan, S., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kim, S. (2011). Classrooms matter: The design of virtual classrooms influences gender disparities in computer science classes. Computers & Education, 57, 1825-1835. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.004.
58. Cheryan, S., & Plaut, V. C. (2010). Explaining underrepresentation: A theory of precluded interest. Sex Roles, 63, 475-488. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11199-010-9835-x.
59. Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1045-1060. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016239.
60. Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Handron, C., & Hudson, L. (2013). The stereotypical computer scientist: Gendered media representations as a barrier to inclusion for women. Sex Roles, 69, 58-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11199-013-0296-x.
61. Cheryan, S., Siy, J. O., Vichayapai, M., Drury, B. J., & Kim, S. (2011). Do female and male role models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women's anticipated success in STEM? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 656-664. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/194855 0611405218.
62. Chow, A., Eccles, J. S., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2012). Task value profiles across subjects and aspirations to physical and IT-related sciences in the United States and Finland. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1612-1628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030194.
63. Clark, J. K., Thiem, K. C., Barden, J., Stuart, J. O. R., & Evans, A. T. (2015). Stereotype validation: The effects of activating negative stereotypes after intellectual performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 531-552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038887.
64. Clay Mathematics Institute. (2008). Interview with research fellow Maryam Mirzakhani. Annual Report, 11-13. Retrieved from http:// www.claymath.org/library/annual_report/ar2008/08Interview.pdf
65. Cohoon, J. M. (2002). Women in CS and biology. SIGSCE Bulletin, 34, 82-86.
66. Cohoon, J. M. (2006). Just get over it or just get on with it: Retaining women in undergraduate computing. In J. M. Cohoon & W. Aspray (Eds.), Women and information technology: Research on underrepresentation (pp. 204-237). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262033459.003.0007.
67. Cohoon, J. M., & Aspray, W. (2006). A critical review of the research on women's participation in postsecondary computing education. In J. M. Cohoon & W. Aspray (Eds.), Women and information technology: Research on underrepresentation (pp. 137-180). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262033459.003.0005.
68. College Board. (2013). Program summary report 2013. Retrieved from http://research.collegeboard.org/programs/ap/data/archived/2013.
69. College Board. (2014). 2014. college-bound seniors: Total group profile report. Retrieved from https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digital Services/pdf/sat/TotalGroup-2014.pdf
70. Computer Science Teachers Association. (n.d.). CSTA national secondary school computer science survey (2013). Retrieved from http://csta.acm.org/Research/sub/Projects/ResearchFiles/CSTASurvey13Results.pdf
71. Concannon, J. P., & Barrow, L. H. (2009). A cross-sectional study of engineering students' self-efficacy by gender, ethnicity, year, and transfer status. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 163-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9141-3.
72. Concannon, J. P., & Barrow, L. H. (2012). A reanalysis of engineering majors' self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 742-753. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9362-8.
73. Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1691-1730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/321299.
74. Correll, S. J. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review, 69, 93-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900106.
75. Croft, A., Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015). An underexamined inequality: Cultural and psychological barriers to men's engagement with communal roles. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 343-370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868314564789.
76. Croft, A., Schmader, T., Block, K., & Baron, A. S. (2014). The second shift reflected in the second generation: Do parents' gender roles at home predict children's aspirations? Psychological Science, 25, 1418-1428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797614533968.
77. Crosnoe, R., Riegle-Crumb, C., Field, S., Frank, K., & Muller, C. (2008). Peer group contexts of girls' and boys' academic experiences. Child Development, 79, 139-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01116.x.
78. Cundiff, J. L., Vescio, T. K., Loken, E., & Lo, L. (2013). Do gender- science stereotypes predict science identification and science career aspirations among undergraduate science majors? Social Psychology of Education, 16, 541-554. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9232-8.
79. Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S. J. (2006). Exposure to scientific theories affects women's math performance. Science, 314, 435. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1126/science.1131100.
80. Daubman, K. A., Heatherington, L., & Ahn, A. (1992). Gender and the self-presentation of academic achievement. Sex Roles, 27, 187-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00290017.
81. Deemer, E. D., Thoman, D. B., Chase, J. P., & Smith, J. L. (2014). Feeling the threat: Stereotype threat as a contextual barrier to women's science career choice intentions. Journal of Career Development, 41, 141-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894845313483003.
82. Di Bella, L., Miles, E., & Saul, J. (2016). Philosophers explicitly associate philosophy with maleness: An examination of implicit and explicit gender stereotypes in philosophy. In M. Brownstein & J. Saul (Eds.), Implicit bias and philosophy Vol. 1: Metaphysics and epistemology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
83. Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051-1057. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0956797610377342.
84. Diekman, A. B., Clark, E. K., Johnston, A. M., Brown, E. R., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to stem careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 902-918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025199.
85. Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171-1188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167200262001.
86. Downey, D. B., & Vogt Yuan, A. S. (2005). Sex differences in school performance during high school: Puzzling patterns and possible explanations. The Sociological Quarterly, 46, 299-321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2005.00014.x.
87. Dresselhaus, M. S., Franz, J. R., & Clark, B. C. (1994). Interventions to increase the participation of women in physics. Science, 263, 1392-1393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.263.5152.1392.
88. Drury, B. J., Siy, J. O., & Cheryan, S. (2011). When do female role models benefit women? The importance of differentiating recruitment from retention in STEM. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 265-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2011.620935.
89. Dryburgh, H. (2000). Underrepresentation of girls and women in computer science: Classification of 1990s research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23, 181-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/8RYV-9JWHXQMB- QF41.
90. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, Inc.
91. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.
92. Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women's educational and occupational choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585-609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb01049.x.
93. Eccles, J. S., Barber, B., & Jozefowicz, D. (1999). Linking gender to educational, occupational, and recreational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In W. B. Swann, Jr., & J. H. Langlois (Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes in modern society: The gender science of Janet Taylor Spence (pp. 153-192). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10277-007.
94. Educational Testing Service. (2014). Table 4: General test percentage distribution of scores within intended broad graduate major field based on seniors and nonenrolled college graduates. Retrieved from http:// www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide_table4.pdf
95. Ehrlinger, J., & Dunning, D. (2003). How chronic self-views influence (and potentially mislead) estimates of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 5-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5.
96. Eidelman, L., & Hazzan, O. (2005). Factors influencing the shrinking pipeline in high schools: A sector-based analysis of the Israeli high school system. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37, 406-410. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1145/1047124.1047478.
97. Ellison, G., & Swanson, A. (2010). The gender gap in secondary school mathematics at high achievement levels: Evidence from the American Mathematics Competitions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24, 109-128.
98. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018053.
99. Else-Quest, N. M., Mineo, C. C., & Higgins, A. (2013). Math and science attitudes and achievement at the intersection of gender and ethnicity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 293-309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684313480694.
100. Ensmenger, N. (2010). Making programming masculine. In T. J. Misa (Ed.), Gender codes: Why women are leaving computing (pp. 141-130). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley/IEEE Computer Society. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ 9780470619926.ch6
101. Ercikan, K., McCreith, T., & Lapointe, V. (2005). Factors associated with mathematics achievement and participation in advanced mathematics courses: An examination of gender differences from an international perspective. School Science and Mathematics, 105, 5-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18031.x.
102. Espinosa, L. L. (2011). Pipelines and pathways: Women of color in undergraduate STEM majors and the college experiences that contribute to persistence. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 209-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.2.92315ww157656k3u
103. Evans, C. D., & Diekman, A. B. (2009). On motivated role selection: Gender beliefs, distant goals, and career interest. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 235-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01493.x.
104. Fan, X., Chen, M., & Matsumoto, A. R. (1997). Gender differences in mathematics achievement: Findings from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 229-242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1997.9943456.
105. Federman, M. (2007). State graduation requirements, high school course taking, and choosing a technical college major. B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 7, 1-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.1521.
106. Ferreira, M. M. (2003). Gender differences in graduate students' perspectives on the culture of science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9, 119-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1615/ JWomenMinorScienEng.v9.i2.10.
107. Ferriman, K., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Work preferences, life values, and personal views of top math/science graduate students and the profoundly gifted: Developmental changes and gender differences during emerging adulthood and parenthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 517-532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016030.
108. Finson, K. D. (2002). Drawing a scientist: What we do and do not know after fifty years of drawings. School Science and Mathematics, 102, 335-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb18217.x.
109. Fischer, F., Schult, J., & Hell, B. (2013). Sex-specific differential prediction of college admission tests: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 478-488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031956.
110. Fiske, S. T. (2010). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
111. Fiske, S. T., & Markus, H. R. (2012). Facing social class: How societal rank influences interaction. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
112. Forbes, C. E., & Schmader, T. (2010). Retraining attitudes and stereotypes to affect motivation and cognitive capacity under stereotype threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 740-754. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020971.
113. Fox, M. F., & Stephan, P. E. (2001). Careers of young scientists: Preferences, prospects and realities by gender and field. Social Studies of Science, 31, 109-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631201031001006.
114. Fralick, B., Kearn, J., Thompson, S., & Lyons, J. (2009). How middle schoolers draw engineers and scientists. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 60-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9133-3.
115. Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Children's competence and value beliefs from childhood through adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male-sex-typed domains. Developmental Psychology, 38, 519-533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.4.519.
116. Friedman, L. (1995). The space factor in mathematics: Gender differences. Review of Educational Research, 65, 22-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/ 00346543065001022.
117. Frieze, C., Hazzan, O., Blum, L., & Dias, M. B. (2006). Culture and environment as determinants of women's participation in computing: Revealing the "Women-CS fit." ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 38, 22-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1124706.1121351.
118. Fryer, R. G., Jr., & Levitt, S. D. (2010). An empirical analysis of the gender gap in mathematics. American Economic Journal Applied Economics, 2, 210-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/app.2.2.210.
119. Galpin, V. (2002). Women in computing around the world. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34, 94-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/543812.543839.
120. Ganley, C. M., & Vasilyeva, M. (2011). Sex differences in the relation between math performance, spatial skills, and attitudes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 235-242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.04.001.
121. Gelernter, D. (1999, June 21). Women and science at Yale. The Weekly Standard. Retrieved from http://www.weeklystandard.com/women-andscience- at-yale/article/11423.
122. Gibbs, B. G. (2010). Reversing fortunes or content change? Gender gaps in math-related skill throughout childhood. Social Science Research, 39, 540-569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.02.005.
123. Gilbert, M. C. (1996). Attributional patterns and perceptions of math and science among fifth-grade through seventh-grade girls and boys. Sex Roles, 35, 489-506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01544133.
124. Gilmartin, S., Denson, N., Li, E., Bryant, A., & Aschbacher, P. (2007). Gender ratios in high school science departments: The effect of percent female faculty on multiple dimensions of students' science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 980-1009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20179.
125. Gino, F., Wilmuth, C. A., & Brooks, A. W. (2015). Compared to men, women view professional advancement as equally attainable, but less desirable. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, 12354-12359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1502567112.
126. Good, C., Aronson, J., & Harder, J. A. (2008). Problems in the pipeline: Stereotype threat and women's achievement in high-level math courses. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 17-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2007.10.004.
127. Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women's representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 700-717. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0026659.
128. Google, & Gallup. (2015a). Images of computer science: Perceptions among students, parents and educators in the U.S. Retrieved from http://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/images-of-computer-sciencereport. pdf
129. Google, & Gallup. (2015b). Searching for computer science: Access and barriers in U.S. K-12. education. Retrieved from http://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/searching-for-computer-science:report.pdf
130. Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of occupational aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 545-579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.28.6.545.
131. Graves, J. A. (2014, February 12). The 25. best jobs of 2014: The top occupations to pursue for this year and this decade. U.S. News. Retrieved from http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/slideshows/the-25-bestjobs- of-2014/13.
132. Greenfield, T. A. (1995a). An exploration of gender participation patterns in science competitions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 735-748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320707.
133. Greenfield, T. A. (1995b). Sex differences in science museum exhibit attraction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 925-938. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320905.
134. Greenwald, A. G., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2014). With malice toward none and charity for some: Ingroup favoritism enables discrimination. American Psychologist, 69, 669-684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036056.
135. Griffith, A. L. (2010). Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school that matters? Economics of Education Review, 29, 911-922. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.010.
136. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42, 38-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
137. Gürer, D., & Camp, T. (2002). An ACM-W literature review on women in computing. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34, 121-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/543812.543844.
138. Guynn, J. (2015). Code.org trains 15,000. teachers in computer science. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/ 09/10/codeorg-hadi-partovi-computer-science-back-school-kidsteachers- women-minorities/71905738/
139. Hafner, K. (2012, April 2). Giving women the access code. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/ giving-women-the-access-code.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
140. Haines, V. A., & Wallace, J. E. (2003). Gender-role attitudes, perceptions of engineering, and beliefs about women in engineering 'having it all': Are male and female engineering undergraduates really so different? Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 49, 376-379.
141. Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8, 1-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x.
142. Hartman, H., & Hartman, M. (2008). How undergraduate engineering students perceive women's (and men's) problems in science, math and engineering. Sex Roles, 58, 251-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9327-9.
143. Haslanger, S. (2010). Preliminary report of the survey on publishing in philosophy. APA Newsletter, 10, 10-15.
144. Haynes, A. F., Mullins, A. G., & Stein, B. S. (2004). Differential models for math anxiety in male and female college students. Sociological Spectrum, 24, 295-318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02732170490431304.
145. Hazari, Z., Sadler, P. M., & Tai, R. H. (2008). Gender differences in the high school and affective experiences of introductory college physics students. The Physics Teacher, 46, 423-427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/ 1.2981292.
146. Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M. C. (2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 978-1003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20363.
147. Heckert, T. M., Droste, H. E., Adams, P. J., Griffin, C. M., Roberts, L. L., Mueller, M. A., & Wallis, H. A. (2002). Gender differences in anticipated salary: Role of salary estimates for others, job characteristics, career paths, and job inputs. Sex Roles, 47, 139-151. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1023/A:1021095005694.
148. Hedeker, D., Gibbons, R. D., & Waternaux, C. (1999). Sample size estimation for longitudinal designs with attrition: Comparing timerelated contrasts between two groups. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 70-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/1076 9986024001070.
149. Hellmich, S. N. (2012). Are economists selfish and rational? And if so, why (Working Paper Nr. 4). Retrieved from http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/soz/ag/hedtke/pdf/hellmich_state-of-the-art.pdf
150. Heyman, G. D., Martyna, B., & Bhatia, S. (2002). Gender and achievement-related beliefs among engineering students. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8, 43-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v8.i1.30.
151. Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review, 1, 69-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2006.09.001.
152. Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543070002151.
153. Hoh, Y. (2009). Using notable women in environmental engineering to dispel misperceptions of engineers. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4, 117-131.
154. Howard, K. A., Carlstrom, A. H., Katz, A. D., Chew, A. Y., Ray, G. C., Laine, L., & Caulum, D. (2011). Career aspirations of youth: Untangling race/ethnicity, SES, and gender. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 98-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.12.002.
155. Howell, K. (1993). The experience of women in undergraduate computer science: What does the research say? SIGCSE Bulletin, 25, 1-8. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1145/152751.152752.
156. Huang, P. M., & Brainard, S. G. (2001). Identifying determinants of academic self-confidence among science, math, engineering, and technology students. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7, 315-337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v7.i4.40
157. Hügelschäfer, S., & Achtziger, A. (2014). On confident men and rational women: It's all on your mind(set). Journal of Economic Psychology, 41, 31-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.04.001.
158. Hughes, W. J. (2002). Gender attributions of science and academic attributes: An examination of undergraduate science, mathematics, and technology majors. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8, 53-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v8.i1.40.
159. Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 880-895. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019506.
160. Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326, 1410-1412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1177067.
161. Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Ellis, A. B., & Williams, C. C. (2008). Diversity. Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321, 494-495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1160364.
162. Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2006). Diversity. Gender similarities in mathematics and science. Science, 314, 599-600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1132154.
163. Hyde, J. S., & Mertz, J. E. (2009). Gender, culture, and mathematics performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 8801-8807. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.0901265106.
164. Ing, M., Aschbacher, P. R., & Tsai, S. M. (2014). Gender differences in the consistency of middle school students' interest in engineering and science careers. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 4, 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1090.
165. Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11, 365-371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00272.
166. Irani, L. (2004, March). Understanding gender and confidence in CS course culture. Paper presented at the SIGCSE '04, Norfolk, VA.
167. Iskander, E. T., Gore, P. A., Furse, C., & Bergerson, A. (2013). Gender differences in expressed interests in engineering-related fields ACT 30-year data analysis identified trends and suggested avenues to reverse trends. Journal of Career Assessment, 21, 599-613. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1069072712475290.
168. Jacobs, J. E., Finken, L. L., Griffin, N. L., & Wright, J. D. (1998). The career plans of science-talented rural adolescent girls. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 681-704. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/ 00028312035004681.
169. Jones, B. D., Ruff, C., & Paretti, M. C. (2013). The impact of engineering identification and stereotypes on undergraduate women's achievement and persistence in engineering. Social Psychology of Education, 16, 471-493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9222-x.
170. Jones, M. G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students' experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84, 180-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ (SICI)1098-237X(200003)84:2<180::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-x.
171. Jones, P. R. (2011). Reducing the impact of stereotype threat on women's math performance: Are two strategies better than one? Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9, 587-616.
172. Kahle, J. B., Matyas, M. L., & Cho, H. H. (1985). An assessment of the impact of science experiences on the career choices of male and female biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 385-394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660220502.
173. Karatas, F., Micklos, A., & Bodner, G. (2008, June). Sixth grade students' images of engineering: What do engineers do? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2008. ASEE Annual Conference, Pittsburg, PA.
174. Kawakami, K., Steele, J. R., Cifa, C., Phills, C. E., & Dovidio, J. F. (2008). Approaching math increases math= me and math= pleasant. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 818-825. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.009.
175. Kiefer, A. K., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2007). Implicit stereotypes, gender identification, and math-related outcomes: A prospective study of female college students. Psychological Science, 18, 13-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01841.x.
176. Kiefer, A. K., & Shih, M. (2006). Gender differences in persistence and attributions in stereotype relevant contexts. Sex Roles, 54, 859-868. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9051-x.
177. King, E. B., Mendoza, S. A., Madera, J. M., Hebl, M. R., & Knight, J. L. (2006). What's in a name? A multiracial investigation of the role of occupational stereotypes in selection decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1145-1159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00035.x.
178. Klawe, M. (2015, June 10). How can we encourage more women to study computer science? Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/how-can-we-encourage-more-women-study-computer-science- 341652.
179. Knight, M., & Cunningham, C. (2004, June). Draw an Engineer Test (DAET): Development of a tool to investigate students' ideas about engineers and engineering. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT.
180. Koch, A. J., D'Mello, S. D., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 128-161. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036734.
181. Konrad, A. M., Ritchie, J. E., Jr., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 593-641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.593.
182. Kost-Smith, L. E., Pollock, S. J., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2010). Gender disparities in second-semester college physics: The incremental effects of a "smog of bias". Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research, 6, 1-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020112.
183. Lachance, J. A., & Mazzocco, M. M. (2006). A longitudinal analysis of sex differences in math and spatial skills in primary school age children. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 195-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.12.001.
184. Lane, K. A., Goh, J. X., & Driver-Linn, E. (2012). Implicit science stereotypes mediate the relationship between gender and academic participation. Sex Roles, 66, 220-234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0036.z.
185. Lang, C., Fisher, J., Craig, A., & Forgasz, H. (2015). Outreach programmes to attract girls into computing: How the best laid plans can sometimes fail. Computer Science Education, 25, 257-275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1067008.
186. Lanteri, A., & Rizzello, S. (2007). Ought (only) economists to defect? Stereotypes, identity, and the prisoner dilemma. In A. Lanteri & J. Vromen (Eds.), The economics of economists, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1024149.
187. Leaper, C., Farkas, T., & Brown, C. S. (2012). Adolescent girls' experiences and gender-related beliefs in relation to their motivation in math/ science and English. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 268-282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9693.z.
188. Lee, J. D. (1998). Which kids can "become" scientists? Effects of gender, self-concepts, and perceptions of scientists. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 199-219. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2787108.
189. Legewie, J., & DiPrete, T. A. (2014). The high school environment and the gender gap in science and engineering. Sociology of Education, 87, 259-280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038040714547770.
190. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79-122. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027.
191. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., Sheu, H.-B., Schmidt, J., Brenner, B. R., Gloster, C. S.,. Treistman, D. (2005). Social cognitive predictors of academic interests and goals in engineering: Utility for women and students at historically Black universities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 84-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.1.84.
192. Lent, R. W., Lopez, F. G., Sheu, H., & Lopez, A. M., Jr. (2011). Social cognitive predictors of the interests and choices of computing majors: Applicability to underrepresented students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 184-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.10.006.
193. Leslie, S. J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347, 262-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1261375.
194. Levanon, A., England, P., & Allison, P. (2009). Occupational feminization and pay: Assessing causal dynamics using 1950-2000 U.S. census data. Social Forces, 88, 865-891. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0264.
195. Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2010). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1123-1135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0021276.
196. Lippa, R. (1998). Gender-related individual differences and the structure of vocational interests: The importance of the people-things dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 996-1009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.996.
197. Lippa, R. A. (2010). Gender differences in personality and interests: When, where, and why? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 1098-1110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x.
198. Litzler, E., Samuelson, C. C., & Lorah, J. A. (2014). Breaking it down: Engineering student STEM confidence at the intersection of race/ ethnicity and gender. Research in Higher Education, 55, 810-832. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11162-014-9333.z.
199. Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 91-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.91.
200. Logel, C., Walton, G. M., Spencer, S. J., Iserman, E. C., von Hippel, W., & Bell, A. E. (2009). Interacting with sexist men triggers social identity threat among female engineers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1089-1103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015703.
201. Long, M. C., Iatarola, P., & Conger, D. (2009). Explaining gaps in readiness for college-level math: The role of high school courses. Education Finance and Policy, 4, 1-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/edfp.2009.4.1.1.
202. Lopatto, D. (2007). Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6, 297-306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039.
203. Louis, R. A., & Mistele, J. M. (2012). The differences in scores and self-efficacy by student gender in mathematics and science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 1163-1190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9325-9.
204. Lucas, K., & Sherry, J. L. (2004). Sex differences in video game play: A communication-based explanation. Communication Research, 31, 499-523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650204267930.
205. Lynn, K. M., Raphael, C., Olefsky, K., & Bachen, C. M. (2003). Bridging the gender gap in computing: An integrative approach to content design for girls. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28, 143-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/79HP-RVE7-3A9N-FV8C
206. Lyons,K.C.(2013). 2012 National survey of science and mathematics education: Status of high school biology. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
207. Maeda, Y., & Yoon, S. Y. (2013). A meta-analysis on gender differences in mental rotation ability measured by the Purdue spatial visualization tests: Visualization of rotations (PSVT: R). Educational Psychology Review, 25, 69-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9215-x.
208. Mann, A., & Diprete, T. A. (2013). Trends in gender segregation in the choice of science and engineering majors. Social Science Research, 42, 1519-1541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.07.002.
209. Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
210. Markus, H. R., & Conner, A. L. (2014). Clash!: 8 cultural conflicts that make us who we are. New York, NY: Penguin.
211. Markus, H. R., & Hamedani, M. G. (2007). Sociocultural psychology: The dynamic interdependence among self systems and social systems. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 3-46). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
212. Martinez, S., & Guzman, S. (2013). Gender and racial/ethnic differences in self-reported levels of engagement in high school math and science courses. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 35, 407-427. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739986313495495.
213. Masnick, A. M., Valenti, S. S., Cox, B. D., & Osman, C. J. (2010). A multidimensional scaling analysis of students' attitudes about science careers. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 653-667. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690902759053.
214. Master, A., Cheryan, S., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2016). Computing whether she belongs: Stereotypes undermine girls' interest and sense of belonging in computer science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 424-437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000061.
215. Matskewich, H. E., & Cheryan, S. (2016). Comparing stereotypes and attitudes across STEM fields [data files and codebooks]. Retrieved from osf.io/6gmn5
216. McAdam, J. E. (1990). The persistent stereotype: Children's images of scientists. Physics Education, 25, 102-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0031-9120/25/2/307.
217. Mellström, U. (2009). The intersection of gender, race and cultural boundaries, or why is computer science in Malaysia dominated by women? Social Studies of Science, 39, 885-907. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0306312709334636.
218. Milkman, K. L., Akinola, M., & Chugh, D. (2015). What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1678-1712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000022.
219. Miller, C. C. (2015, May 21). Women in tech: Making computer science more inviting: A look at what works. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/upshot/making-computerscience- more-inviting-a-look-at-what-works.html?abt=0002&abg=0
220. Miller, D. I., Eagly, A. H., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Women's representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: Evidence from 66. nations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 631-644. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000005.
221. Miller, D. I., & Halpern, D. F. (2013). Can spatial training improve long-term outcomes for gifted STEM undergraduates? Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 141-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.012.
222. Miller, D. T., Taylor, B., & Buck, M. L. (1991). Gender gaps: Who needs to be explained? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 5-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.1.5.
223. Miller, D. I., & Wai, J. (2015). The bachelor's to Ph.D. STEM pipeline no longer leaks more women than men: A 30-year analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00037.
224. Miller, P. H., Blessing, J. S., & Schwartz, S. (2006). Gender differences in high-school students' views about science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 363-381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500 690500277664.
225. Miller, P. H., Rosser, S. V., Benigno, J. P., & Zieseniss, M. L. (2000). A desire to help others: Goals of high-achieving female science undergraduates. Women's Studies Quarterly, 28, 128-142.
226. Misa, T. J. (Ed.). (2010). Gender codes: Why women are leaving computing. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470619926.
227. Miura, I. T. (1987). The relationship of computer self-efficacy expectations to computer interest and course enrollment in college. Sex Roles, 16, 303-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00289956.
228. Morgan, C., Isaac, J. D., & Sansone, C. (2001). The role of interest in understanding the career choices of female and male college students. Sex Roles, 44, 295-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1010929600004.
229. Morgan, S. L., Gelbgiser, D., & Weeden, K. A. (2013). Feeding the pipeline: Gender, occupational plans, and college major selection. Social Science Research, 42, 989-1005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.03.008.
230. Morris, L. K., & Daniel, L. G. (2008). Perceptions of a chilly climate: Differences in traditional and non-traditional majors for women. Research in Higher Education, 49, 256-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11162-007-9078.z.
231. Moses, M. S., Howe, K. R., & Niesz, T. (1999). The pipeline and student perceptions of schooling: Good news and bad news. Educational Policy, 13, 573-591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0895904899013004005.
232. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 16474-16479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109.
233. Muller, P. A., Stage, F. K., & Kinzie, J. (2001). Science achievement growth trajectories: Understanding factors related to gender and racial- ethnic differences in precollege science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 981-1012. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/ 00028312038004981.
234. Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879-885. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x.
235. National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Percentage of public and private high school graduates taking selected mathematics and science courses in high school, by sex and race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1982. through 2009. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/ tables/dt12_179.asp
236. National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Percentage of public school teachers of grades 9 through 12, by field of main teaching assignment and selected demographic and educational characteristics: 2011-12. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/ dt13_209.50.asp
237. National Science Foundation. (2002). Science and technology: Public attitudes and public understanding. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 02-01). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c7/c7s3.htm#perceptions
238. National Science Foundation. (2012). Table 2-12. Freshmen intending S&E major, by field, sex, and race/ethnicity: 1995-2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c2/c2s2.htm
239. National Science Foundation. (2014a). Integrated postsecondary education data system, 2013, completions survey. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics: Integrated Science and Engineering Resources Data System (WebCASPAR). Retrieved from https://webcaspar.nsf.gov
240. National Science Foundation. (2014b). Integrated postsecondary education data system, 2013, completions survey by race. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics: Integrated Science and Engineering Resources Data System (WebCASPAR). Retrieved from https:// webcaspar.nsf.gov
241. National Science Foundation. (2014c). Table 2-17. Earned bachelor's degrees, by sex and field: 2000-11. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/ statistics/seind14/index.cfm/appendix/tables.htm
242. National Science Foundation. (2014d). Table 3-13. Employed scientists and engineers, by sex and occupation: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/index.cfm/appendix/tables.htm
243. Nature Physics. (2008, May). Media star. Nature Physics, 4, 337. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v4/n5/full/nphys945.html. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys945.
244. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231.
245. Nord, C., Roey, S., Perkins, R., Lyons, M., Lemanski, N., Brown, J., & Schuknecht, J. (2011). The nation's report card: America's high school graduates. (NCES 2011-462). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/ studies/2011462.pdf
246. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math not = me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44.
247. Nosek, B. A., & Smyth, F. L. (2011). Implicit social cognitions predict sex differences in math engagement and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1125-1156. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/ 0002831211410683.
248. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A.,. Greenwald, A. G. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 10593-10597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809921106.
249. Obama, B. (2016, January 12). The transcript of President Obama's final State of the Union: What he said, and what it meant. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/ 01/12/what-obama-said-in-his-state-of-the-union-address-and-what-itmeant/
250. O'Brien, L. T., Blodorn, A., Adams, G., Garcia, D. M., & Hammer, E. (2015). Ethnic variation in gender-STEM stereotypes and STEM participation: An intersectional approach. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21, 169-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037944
251. O'Connor, M. I. (2012, August 2). Orthopedic surgery: Women on the rise in a male-dominated field. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mary-i-oconnor/orthopedic-surgery-women_ b_1726145.html.
252. Ogletree, S. M., & Williams, S. W. (1990). Sex and sex-typing effects on computer attitudes and aptitude. Sex Roles, 23, 703-712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00289258.
253. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Lee, S. Y. (2011). Gender and other group differences in performance on off-level tests: Changes in the 21st century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 54-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0016986210382574.
254. Ong, M., Wright, C. I., Espinosa, L. L., & Orfield, G. (2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and math- ematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 172-209. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.17763/haer.81.2.t022245n7x4752v2
255. Ost, B. (2010). The role of peers and grades in determining major persistence in the sciences. Economics of Education Review, 29, 923-934. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.011.
256. Page, S. E. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
257. Park, L. E., Young, A. F., Troisi, J. D., & Pinkus, R. T. (2011). Effects of everyday romantic goal pursuit on women's attitudes toward math and science. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1259-1273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167211408436.
258. Patitsas, E., Craig, M., & Easterbrook, S. (2015, August). Scaling up women in computing initiatives: What can we learn from a public policy perspective? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research, Omaha, NE.
259. Paxton, M., Figdor, C., & Tiberius, V. (2012). Quantifying the gender gap: An empirical study of the underrepresentation of women in philosophy. Hypatia, 27, 949-957. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2012.01306.x.
260. Perez-Felkner, L., McDonald, S. K., Schneider, B., & Grogan, E. (2012). Female and male adolescents' subjective orientations to mathematics and the influence of those orientations on postsecondary majors. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1658-1673. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0027020.
261. Picker, S. H., & Berry, J. S. (2000). Investigating pupils' images of mathematicians. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43, 65-94. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1017523230758.
262. Pollock, S. J., Finkelstein, N. D., & Kost, L. E. (2007). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom: How sufficient is interactive engagement? Physical Review Special Topics-Physics. Education Research, 3, 010107.
263. Porucznik, M. A. (2008). Where are all the women orthopaedists? AAOS Now. Retrieved from http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/feb08/cover2.asp
264. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn't be, are allowed to be, and don't have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269-281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066.
265. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1996). Pluralistic ignorance and the perpetuation of social norms by unwitting actors. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 161-209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0065-2601(08)60238-5.
266. Price, J. (2010). The effect of instructor race and gender on student persistence in STEM fields. Economics of Education Review, 29, 901-910. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.07.009.
267. Pryor, J. H., Hurtado, S., DeAngelo, L., Palucki Blake, L., & Tran, S. (2010). The American freshman: National norms Fall 2010. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. Retrieved from http:// www.heri.ucla.edu/pdfs/pubs/tfs/norms/monographs/theamerican freshman2010.pdf
268. Ramsey, L. R., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2011). Changing stereotypes, changing grades: A longitudinal study of stereotyping during a college math course. Social Psychology of Education, 14, 377-387. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11218-010-9150.y.
269. Rask, K. N., & Tiefenthaler, J. (2004). Too few women?-Or too many men? The gender imbalance in undergraduate economics. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=595222.
270. Reuben, E., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2014). How stereotypes impair women's careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 4403-4408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314788111.
271. Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 637-655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00233.
272. Riegle-Crumb, C. (2006). The path through math: Course sequences and academic performance at the intersection of race-ethnicity and gender. American Journal of Education, 113, 101-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/506495.
273. Riegle-Crumb, C., & Moore, C. (2014). The gender gap in high school physics: Considering the context of local communities. Social Science Quarterly, 95, 253-268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12022.
274. Riegle-Crumb, C., Moore, C., & Ramos-Wada, A. (2011). Who wants to have a career in science or math? Exploring adolescents' future aspirations by gender and race/ethnicity. Science Education, 95, 458-476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20431.
275. Riesz, E. D., McNabb, T. F., Stephen, S. L., & Ziomek, R. L. (1994). Gender differences in high school students' attitudes towards science: Research and intervention. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 1, 273-289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v1.i4.20.
276. Robnett, R. D. (2016). Gender bias in STEM fields: Variation in prevalence and links to STEM self-concept. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 65-79.
277. Robnett, R. D., & Leaper, C. (2013). Friendship groups, personal motivation, and gender in relation to high school students' STEM career interest. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 652-664. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jora.12013.
278. Rock, D., & Shaw, J. M. (2000). Exploring children's thinking about mathematicians and their work. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6, 550-555.
279. Ross, J. A., Scott, G., & Bruce, C. D. (2012). The gender confidence gap in fractions knowledge: Gender differences in student beliefachievement relationships. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 278-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2012.00144.x.
280. Rosson, M. B., Carroll, J. M., & Sinha, H. (2011). Orientation of undergraduates toward careers in the computer and information sciences: Gender, self-efficacy and social support. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 11, 1-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2037276.2037278.
281. Rozek, C. S., Hyde, J. S., Svoboda, R. C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2015). Gender differences in the effects of a utility-value intervention to help parents motivate adolescents in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 195-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036981.
282. Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629-645. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629.
283. Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003.
284. Ryoo, J. J., Margolis, J., Lee, C. H., Sandoval, C. D., & Goode, J. (2013). Democratizing computer science knowledge: Transforming the face of computer science through public high school education. Learning, Media and Technology, 38, 161-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.756514.
285. Sackrowitz, M. G., & Parelius, A. P. (1996). An unlevel playing field: Women in the introductory computer science courses. Proceedings of the 27th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37-41.
286. Sapienza, P., Zingales, L., & Maestripieri, D. (2009). Gender differences in financial risk aversion and career choices are affected by testosterone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 15268-15273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907352106.
287. Saucerman, J., & Vasquez, K. (2014). Psychological barriers to STEM participation for women over the course of development. Adultspan Journal, 13, 46-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0029.2014.00025.x.
288. Sawtelle, V., Brewe, E., & Kramer, L. H. (2012). Exploring the relationship between self-efficacy and retention in introductory physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1096-1121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.21050.
289. Sax, L. J. (1994a). Mathematical self-concept: How college reinforces the gender gap. Research in Higher Education, 35, 141-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02496699.
290. Sax, L. J. (1994b). Predicting gender and major-field differences in mathematical self-concept during college. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 1, 291-307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1615/ JWomenMinorScienEng.v1.i4.30.
291. Sax, L. J. (2001). Undergraduate science majors: Gender differences in who goes to graduate school. Review of Higher Education, 24, 153-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2000.0030.
292. Sax, L. J., Kanny, M. A., Riggers-Piehl, T. A., Whang, H., & Paulson, L. N. (2015). "But I'm not good at math": The changing salience of mathematical self-concept in shaping women's and men's STEM aspirations. Research in Higher Education, 56, 813-842. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11162-015-9375-x.
293. Scafidi, T., & Bui, K. (2010). Gender similarities in math performance from middle school through high school. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37, 252-255.
294. Schott, G., & Selwyn, N. (2000). Examining the "male, antisocial" stereotype of high computer users. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23, 291-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/V98R-5ETX-W9LYWD3J
295. Schouten, G. (2015). The stereotype threat hypothesis: An assessment from the philosopher's armchair, for the philosopher's classroom. Hypatia, 30, 450-466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12148.
296. Schreuders, P. D., Mannon, S. E., & Rutherford, B. (2009). Pipeline or personal preference: Women in engineering. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34, 97-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 03043790902721488.
297. Schuman, R. (2014, November 4). Don't worry your pretty little heads: A New York Times op-ed trolls the academic science community. Slate. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/ 2014/11/new_york_times_op_ed_says_academic_science:isn_t_sexist_ that_s_not_what.html
298. Sekaquaptewa, D., & Thompson, M. (2003). Solo status, stereotype threat, and performance expectancies: Their effects on women's performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 68-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00508-5.
299. Selkirk, L. C., Bouchey, H. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2011). Interactions among domain-specific expectancies, values, and gender: Predictors of test anxiety during early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31, 361-389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431610363156.
300. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
301. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
302. Shaffer, E. S., Marx, D. M., & Prislin, R. (2013). Mind the gap: Framing of women's success and representation in STEM affects women's math performance under threat. Sex Roles, 68, 454-463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0252-1.
303. Shapiro, C. A., & Sax, L. J. (2011). Major selection and persistence for women in STEM. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011, 5-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ir.404.
304. Sharpe, N. R., & Sonnert, G. (1999). Women mathematics faculty: Recent trends in academic rank and institutional representation. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 5, 17-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v5.i3.10.
305. Shashaani, L. (1993). Gender-based differences in attitudes toward computers. Computers & Education, 20, 169-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ 0360-1315(93)90085.W.
306. Shashaani, L. (1994). Gender differences in computer experience and its influence on computer attitudes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11, 347-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/64MD-HTKWPDXV- RD62.
307. Shashaani, L. (1997). Gender differences in computer attitudes and use among college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16, 37-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/Y8U7-AMMA-WQUT-R512.
308. Sikora, J., & Pokropek, A. (2012). Gender segregation of adolescent science career plans in 50. countries. Science Education, 96, 234-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20479.
309. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359-1366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632.
310. Simpkins, S. D., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Parents' socializing behavior and children's participation in math, science, and computer out-of-school activities. Applied Developmental Science, 9, 14-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0901_3
311. Simpkins, S. D., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Math and science motivation: A longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 42, 70-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.70.
312. Singh, K., Allen, K. R., Scheckler, R., & Darlington, L. (2007). Women in computer-related majors: A critical synthesis of research and theory from 1994. to 2005. Review of Educational Research, 77, 500-533. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654307309919.
313. Smith, J. L., Lewis, K. L., Hawthorne, L., & Hodges, S. D. (2013). When trying hard isn't natural: Women's belonging with and motivation for male-dominated STEM fields as a function of effort expenditure concerns. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 131-143. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167212468332.
314. Smith, J. L., Morgan, C. L., & White, P. H. (2005). Investigating a measure of computer technology domain identification: A tool for understanding gender differences and stereotypes. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 336-355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001316 4404272486.
315. Smith, J. L., Sansone, C., & White, P. H. (2007). The stereotyped task engagement process: The role of interest and achievement motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 99-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.99.
316. Smith, J. L., & White, P. H. (2002). An examination of implicitly activated, explicitly activated, and nullified stereotypes on mathematical performance: It's not just a woman's issue. Sex Roles, 47, 179-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021051223441.
317. Smith, P. S. (2013). 2012. National survey of science and mathematics education: Status of high school chemistry. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
318. Smyth, F. L., & Nosek, B. A. (2015). On the gender-science stereotypes held by scientists: Explicit accord with gender-ratios, implicit accord with scientific identity. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 415. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00415.
319. Sohn, K. (2012). A new insight into the gender gap in math. Bulletin of Economic Research, 64, 135-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8586.2010.00358.x.
320. Sonnert, G. (2006). Women in science and engineering: Advances, challenges, and solutions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 869, 34-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08353.x.
321. Sonnert, G., Fox, M. F., & Adkins, K. (2007). Undergraduate women in science and engineering: Effects of faculty, fields, and institutions over time. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 1333-1356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00505.x.
322. Spelke, E. S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science?: A critical review. American Psychologist, 60, 950-958. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.9.950.
323. Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1373.
324. Stake, J. E. (2006). The critical mediating role of social encouragement for science motivation and confidence among high school girls and boys. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1017-1045. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00053.x.
325. Stake, J. E., & Nickens, S. D. (2005). Adolescent girls' and boys' science peer relationships and perceptions of the possible self as scientist. Sex Roles, 52, 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-1189-4.
326. Staniec, J. F. O. (2004). The effects of race, sex, and expected returns on the choice of college major. Eastern Economic Journal, 30, 549-562.
327. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797.
328. Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 379-440). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
329. Steele, J. R., James, J. B., & Barnett, R. C. (2002). Learning in a man's world: Examining the perceptions of undergraduate women in maledominated academic areas. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 46-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.00042.
330. Steinpreis, R. E., Anders, K. A., & Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles, 41, 509-528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1018839203698.
331. Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2012). Unseen disadvantage: How American universities' focus on independence undermines the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1178-1197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027143.
332. Stephens, N. M., & Levine, C. S. (2011). Opting out or denying discrimination? How the framework of free choice in American society influences perceptions of gender inequality. Psychological Science, 22, 1231-1236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417260.
333. Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., & Fryberg, S. A. (2012). Social class disparities in health and education: Reducing inequality by applying a sociocultural self model of behavior. Psychological Review, 119, 723-744. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029028.
334. Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women's selfconcept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 255-270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021385.
335. Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 859-884. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017364.
336. Swiatek, M. A. (2004). Gifted students' self-perceptions of ability in specific subject domains: Factor structure and relationship with abovelevel test scores. Roeper Review, 27, 104-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02783190509554298.
337. Teague, G. J. (1997). A structured review of reasons for the underrepresentation of women in computing. In J. Hurst (Ed.), 2nd Australasian SIGCSE Conference (pp. 91-98). The University of Melbourne: The Association of Computing Machinery, Inc.
338. Teshome, Y., Maushak, N., & Athreya, K. (2001). Attitude toward informal science and math: A survey of boys and girls participating in hands-on science and math. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7, 59-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v7.i1.60.
339. Thoman, D. B., Arizaga, J. A., Smith, J. L., Story, T. S., & Soncuya, G. (2014). The grass is greener in non-science, technology, engineering, and math classes: Examining the role of competing belonging to undergraduate women's vulnerability to being pulled away from science. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 246-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684313499899.
340. Thompson, M., Adleberg, T., Sims, S., & Nahmias, E. (2015). Why do women leave philosophy? Surveying students at the introductory level. Unpublished manuscript.
341. Tucker-Drob, E. M., Cheung, A. K., & Briley, D. A. (2014). Gross domestic product, science interest, and science achievement: A person = nation interaction. Psychological Science, 25, 2047-2057. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797614548726.
342. Tyson, W., Lee, R., Borman, K. M., & Hanson, M. (2007). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) pathways: High school science and math coursework and postsecondary degree attainment. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12, 243-270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10824660701601266.
343. Udo, M. K., Ramsey, G. P., Reynolds-Alpert, S. S., & Mallow, J. V. (2001). Does physics teaching affect gender-based science anxiety? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10, 237-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1016686532654.
344. United States Departments of Education, Office of Civil Rights. (2014). Civil rights data collection data snapshot: College and career readiness. Retrieved from http://ocrdata.ed.gov/Downloads/CRDC-College-and- Career-Readiness-Snapshot.pdf
345. Unsworth, N., Redick, T. S., McMillan, B. D., Hambrick, D. Z., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2015). Is playing video games related to cognitive abilities? Psychological Science, 26, 759-774. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797615570367.
346. Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
347. Valian, V. (2014). Interests, gender, and science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 225-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745 691613519109.
348. Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1325-1339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012453.
349. VanVoorhis, C. R. W., & Morgan, B. L. (2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3, 43-50.
350. Vazire, S. (2015). Editorial. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 3-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550615603955.
351. Wai, J., Cacchio, M., Putallaz, M., & Makel, M. (2010). Sex differences in the right tail of cognitive abilities: A 30. year examination. Intelligence, 38, 412-423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.04.006.
352. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50. years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 817-835. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016127.
353. Walker, W., & Plata, M. (2000). Race/gender/age differences in college mathematics students. Journal of Developmental Education, 23, 24-32.
354. Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 82-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82.
355. Walton, G. M., & Spencer, S. J. (2009). Latent ability: Grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science, 20, 1132-1139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02417.x.
356. Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy-value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental Review, 33, 304-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001.
357. Wang, M. T., Eccles, J. S., & Kenny, S. (2013). Not lack of ability but more choice: Individual and gender differences in choice of careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Psychological Science, 24, 770-775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797612458937.
358. Wang, Z., Lukowski, S. L., Hart, S. A., Lyons, I. M., Thompson, L. A., Kovas, Y.,. Petrill, S. A. (2015). Is math anxiety always bad for math learning? The role of math motivation. Psychological Science, 26, 1863-1876. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797615602471.
359. Weisgram, E. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2006). Girls and science careers: The role of altruistic values and attitudes about scientific tasks. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 326-348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2006.04.004.
360. Weisgram, E. S., Dinella, L. M., & Fulcher, M. (2011). The role of masculinity/femininity, values, and occupational value affordances in shaping young men's and women's occupational choices. Sex Roles, 65, 243-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9998-0.
361. Wentling, R. M., & Thomas, S. P. (2004, March). Women in information technology. Paper presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development International Conference (AHRD), Austin, TX.
362. White, S., & Tyler, J. (2014). Who teaches high school physics?: Results from the 2012-13. nationwide survey of high school physics teachers. American Institute of Physics (AIP) Statistical Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.aip.org/statistics/reports/who-teaches-highschool- physics-0
363. Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1996). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes: It depends on what you ask. Computers in Human Behavior, 12, 275-289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(96)00007-6.
364. Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1997). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behavior: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(96)00026-x.
365. Williams, M. J., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2016). The subtle suspension of backlash: A meta-analysis of penalties for women's implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 165-197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000039.
366. Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2015). National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, 5360-5365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418878112.
367. Wilson, B. C. (2002). A study of factors promoting success in computer science including gender differences. Computer Science Education, 12, 141-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/csed.12.1.141.8211.
368. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 46, pp. 55-123). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00002-7.
369. Woodard, T. (2004). The effects of math anxiety of post-secondary developmental students as related to achievement, gender, and age. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9, 1-16.
370. Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330, 686-688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/ science.1193147.
371. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
372. Yang, Y., & Barth, J. M. (2015). Gender differences in STEM undergraduates' vocational interests: People-thing orientation and goal affordances. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 65-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.09.007.
373. Yoder, B. L. (2011). Engineering by the numbers. 2011. ASEE profiles of engineering and engineering technology colleges. Retrieved from http:// www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/college-profiles/ 2011-profile-engineering-statistics.pdf
374. Yoder, B. L. (2014). Engineering by the numbers. 2014. ASEE Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Technology Colleges.
375. Young, D. M., Rudman, L. A., Buettner, H. M., & McLean, M. C. (2013). The influence of female role models on women's implicit science cognitions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 283-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684313482109.
376. Zell, E., Krizan, Z., & Teeter, S. R. (2015). Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis. American Psychologist, 70, 10-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038208.
377. Zinth, J. D. (2007). Standard high school graduation requirements (50- state). Retrieved from http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbprofall? Rep=HS01